Could the tactics used to fight racism work on other social ills?

The vast majority of people have zero tolerance for racism. Being branded a racist is nearly as damaging as getting on the sex crimes registry. People go to great lengths to label themselves “not racist” even while spouting racist views. It’s just not something anyone wants to be, aside from a tiny minority who wear the badge proudly. Be an out and out racist, and you’ll have trouble getting decent work, and you’ll lose some friends and family. It’s so toxic that many people won’t even want to be associated with you.

So what would happen if this type of societal ostracism was used against other social ills? First, let’s look at something directly related to racism, sexism. While there are some aspects of sexism that are nearly as toxic as racism, such as directly stating that females are inferior, other types of awful behavior that clearly express a belief in female inferiority are not punished all that severely by society. Womanizers, abusers, sexual harassers, common criminals who especially target females because they are physically weaker, and men who think that women exist primarily as objects for their pleasure. Recently there’s been a lot of activism against the rape culture, but it just seems like a man who does these things can still usually exist in polite society in a way that a racist cannot. Is this likely to change? Momentum seems to be heading in that direction. Is it a good thing? Probably even more important than solving racism IMO. Having racist beliefs only directly hurts minorities if you are in a position to hurt them. Having sexist beliefs not only can be used to hurt women, it almost always IS used to hurt women, and it seems like every guy who is like that has left a trail of physically or emotionally damaged women in their wake. So should we ostracize these types? Or are they just so common that we’re reluctant to go that far? There are certainly a lot more men who are disrespectful to the women in their lives than out racists.

Or let’s take other social ills, like drug abuse, unsafe sex, lack of work ethic, violent tempers, grossly reckless driving habits? If these behaviors were considered beyond the pale by society the way racism is, would that change a lot of people’s behavior and sharply reduce the prevalence of such social ills?

Now obviously one of the effects of anti-racism is that it simply pushes a lot of it underground. Whereas our alcoholics, womanizers, and ne’er do well friends are all around us at least partially out in the open, racists normally tend to hide in the shadows. But it also does seem that there’s a lot less of it. People really, really not wanting to be considered racist does tend to affect all but the most indecent people. If it was similarly awful to be an alcoholic, would more people abstain to avoid the risk of becoming alcoholic? Okay, that’s an addiction so not totally analogous, although less severe social ostracization of smokers does seem to be reducing their numbers. But to go back to sexism, would it make men less likely to brag about the women they’ve wronged if all men who wanted to seem decent people ostracized them for it? On that issue it does seem like it would do a lot of good, while doing less, but still substantial good, for unrelated social ills.

Of course, the downside is that we’d go back to a 1950s-like society updated for the 21st century, just with a different set of taboos. But I think we are probably already heading in that direction. There doesn’t seem to be a general liberal philosophy of challenging social norms anymore and letting people find their own answers to difficult moral questions. seems like we’re snapping back to moral absolutism and a new kind of social conservatism.

I’m not entirely clear on what tactic you are referring to.

Social ostracism only works when the bulk of the most powerful people in said society are in support of it. It’s clear right now, that once the leadership in the US went from people who strongly opposed racism to people who don’t do so, that the racism which was always there bloomed fiercely again, that the word “effective” doesn’t apply to Social Ostracism. At least not as a SHORT term tactic.

I can’t think of ANY societal ill which was EVER defeated by social pressure alone. In fact, I have often seen that those who support the “problem,” actually encourage the response to it to be social pressure alone, precisely because they can carry on as they wish, without suffering any penalty, as long as they tolerate the ostracism. That is why racists fight for ideas like States Rights and Individual Freedom to behave as they wish, and why they strongly oppose any active government enforcement of equality laws.

If a “1950s-like society” is just a society in which certain rhetoric and behavior is not tolerated to the point of shunning and negative consequences on one’s life (like difficulty in employment), then every society is a 1950s-like society. There is always taboo behavior, and there always has been, and there always will be. It’s just that what’s taboo has changed, and rightfully so.

Racists may be coming out of the wood works again, but there are a whole lot fewer of them than there used to be, and less severe as a whole.

Said ostracism is basically the “SJW” cause, and yes, I do think it is effective–after it’s been established by society that those things are bad. Sexism and racism are there. Homophobia and transphobia, not so much, though the former is close. We’ll know we’re there when companies do not proudly proclaim they are anti-gay or anti-trans. Who proudly proclaims they are anti-women or anti-black?

That’s about the point where you can start treating it like a taboo. It’s already gotten to the point where the most extremes are a taboo, and you can expand that.

That said, I will point out a huge downfall on it: a lot of people care a lot more about not being perceived as racist than to not do racist things. That’s why we get all these arguments about how something isn’t actually racist. Doing this makes it really hard to talk about smaller bits of racism without people freaking out thinking you’re insulting them–because being a racist is such a bad thing.

It’s a two-edged sword.

But it’s clear that more libertine views on certain subjects has resulted in negative consequences. We’re freer to have sex now, but we’re also having more single mothers and more STDs. I’m no puritan on sex, to be sure, but I am pretty big on safe sexual practices. A friend of a friend with HIV is pregnant. She’s been having unprotected sex with men and women alike for years. This sounds to me like a prime example of behavior that should be considered out of bounds. I’d rather be called a kike than get HIV and I don’t think that’s an unreasonable view. I personally think this girl is a monster, but no one else seems to want to even pass judgment mildly other than a finger wag.

And their boldness is misguided. People that attended the Charlottesville rally are being outed. One has already lost a job and another has been disowned by his family. Anyone who thought Trump’s Presidency would make it easier to express these views was wrong. It’s bringing them out of the woodwork, to be sure, but only to be destroyed socially.

I’d say sexism is more on par with homophobia and transphobia than racism. We do tolerate sexists a lot more than we do racists. I can see where the momentum is headed on all those issues, but I think racism will continue to be seen as uniquely noxious.

BTW, I wonder how much of that has to do with who racists are? Most out racists are uneducated southerners, an already fairly unsympathetic group. Sure, racism and racial tension are everywhere, but Klansmen and skinheads tend to be overwhelmingly working class and southern, with some presence in the west as well. Whereas sexists and homophobes are a more diverse group. Hardcore sexists are everywhere and homophobia, while more prevalent among the less educated, isn’t primarily a southern white thing either.

I don’t think very many people DO racist things. It’s more about beliefs and views at this point.

Yes, it can shut down debate, and sometimes it’s an actual tactic for ending a debate. A friend of mine shared a “pyramid of racism” with Nazis at the pinnacle as the most socially unacceptable type of racism, but further down more socially acceptable kinds of racism that you can sorta get away with. Near the middle was “support for restrictive immigration policies”. Wha? I realize some supporters of liberal immigration policies are trying to portray their opponents as racists, and many of their opponents ARE racists, but every nation has restrictions on immigration and even the vast majority of “enlightened” folks support limits on immigration. Another one was “self appointed white ally”. Um, while I can see that this could be irritating to minorities sometimes, it’s not racism, it’s just cluelessness.

In my experience, putting others at risk of HIV by knowingly having unprotected sex without informing one’s partner IS taboo, especially in more liberal communities (like the LGBTQ community).

You’ll have to provide a cite that there are more cases of STDs now (aside from new STDs like HIV which weren’t prevalent before the 80s). As for more single mothers, I’m not sure if that’s any worse than more mothers who didn’t want to get pregnant which was obviously the case in the past with less access to birth control.

But this doesn’t address my point anyway – there are still taboos, they’ve just changed.

There’s taboo, and then there’s taboo. Drunk driving is taboo, but chances are you don’t lose friends over it and as long as you didn’t go to jail you probably don’t lose your job either. Having unprotected sex with multiple partners is definitely something her friends urge her not to do, but none of them have disowned her over it. Whereas if she expressed homophobic views, that might actually cost her a little.